1979-06-22_ENFORCEMENT - M1978352

Home Browse Search

At the conclusion of the letter there is reflected a carbon copy to Mr. Chester M. Goldman. The referenced allegations from the Goldman and Stemwedel Affidavits, which may be treated as undisputed fact for purposes of this motion, demonstrate beyond further controversy that the Plaintiffs had in fact received actual notice of the Nottingham application well in advance of the March 1, 1979 Board meeting. Given the established fact of actual notice, Plaintiffs are reduced to arguing that .the Board' s finding and related issuance of a permit to Nottingham should be upset because the Eagle River 1978 Trust was not the addressee of the certified notice of the permit applica- tion, despite the fact that the notice, in fact, bore the address of the Trust and was accepted by an attorney who represented the Trust in a wide variety of matters. As a further ground for challenge, Plaintiffs would have the Board' s decision set aside because the certified notice of the application was allegedly not received from Nottingham, despite the fact that the Plaintiffs were informed of the pending application by Mr. Stemwedel and also had read of the application in a published legal notice. These objec- tions are, on their face, hypertechnical and trivial . As such, they will not satisfy established judicial standards for reversing the Board ' s permit issuance decision. Plaintiffs' argument that actual notice will not suffice when the relevant statute calls for notice by certified mail turns the concept of due process on its head. It is well established in Colorado and elsewhere that actual no- tice is a higher and more preferable form of notice. In- deed, the Colorado Supreme Court has noted with regard to actual notice that "due process certainly cannot be said to have been violated when that method is. used. " Colorado State Board of Medical Examiners v. Palmer , 157 Colo. 40, 400 P.2d 914 , 915 (1965) . The record of the administrative -12-